Seems strange to me that Samsung themselves wouldn't honor this if you purchased from a retailer other than AT&T. I would expect a company to back their hardware as opposed to leaving it up to the retailers.

It seems like it would be well within the resources of a company like Samsung to purchase 100 fish tanks and toss a bunch of phones off the production line into the tanks to verify that they actually are water resistant before selling them as such. Why didn't that happen?

It seems like it would be well within the resources of a company like Samsung to purchase 100 fish tanks and toss a bunch of phones off the production line into the tanks to verify that they actually are water resistant before selling them as such. Why didn't that happen?

Or, you know, one fish tank and toss a hundred phones into it...

The ads for it show it in a fish bowl and a guy standing in a pool with one so I think it would be reasonable to expect you could at least fall into a pool and have your phone still work. Seems like a bit of misleading marketing there if you cannot in fact do those things with your shiny new S4 Active.

It seems like it would be well within the resources of a company like Samsung to purchase 100 fish tanks and toss a bunch of phones off the production line into the tanks to verify that they actually are water resistant before selling them as such. Why didn't that happen?

Yeah, I would assume that quality control for a phone that touts water resistance of that level would have a testing step dubbed the "water tank soak" by the guys in charge of testing.

It seems like it would be well within the resources of a company like Samsung to purchase 100 fish tanks and toss a bunch of phones off the production line into the tanks to verify that they actually are water resistant before selling them as such. Why didn't that happen?

This phone is IP67 certified so it "someone" must have used the fish tank (I hope!) It is certified as waterPROOF, not resistant.

As for who is replacing, it is an agreement between ATT and Samsung. Samsung actually replaces the unit. I own one of these and although I haven't had an issue I called Samsung to verify this. Still requires shipping it in and hoping for a loaner from ATT or living without your phone for a while.

I still highly recommend this phone. Aside from this minor issue the phone is amazing (camera could be better, but we already knew that from previous reviews).

It's probably cheaper to produce more-or-less-water-resistant devices and deal with replacing some than to ensure that every device off the line is really water resistant. There is a reason that consumer electronics don't often use this as a differentiator: if it was easy and cheap to do reliably, every phone would be waterproof.

So the link in the story stating "some tests" is actually one 'test' conducted by a tech reporter who didn't know if he went as deep as one meter, and "thought" he had properly sealed the device.

Yep, that's some definitive proof of a defective design right there. Are there other non-anecdotal reports of failure?

If you read all the warnings AT&T has on the device it makes it sound as if you need to take extra precautions before you dunk it in the water. They mention how you should press the AT&T logo on the back of the device to ensure it's properly sealed and have all the ports firmly covered. What the hell good is that? So I'm supposed to ensure my phone is properly sealed before I accidentally drop it into a puddle, into a toilet, get pushed into a pool by over rambunctious friends? That's clearly not how it's being marketed and this technical editor tested it how it's being marketed and I imagine how a lot of people are going to use it.

Of course. Nothing made like a typical smartphone could be made waterproof. I said as much when this was first announced, and got downvoted. (Because you all want a waterproof phone I get it, but it isn't as simple to make one.)

Go to a marine supply shop and take a look at a waterproof marine radios. That's what it takes. Main gasket, lubed with silicone, where the two halves of the chassis are closed up. Membrane keys glued to the chassis. Display is inside the unit, with a window glued to the chassis so display is visible (right there that would defeat a touchscreen.) And no external jacks of any kind. No, rubber gaskets won't save them. Instead they use flush mounted contact pads. Similar to the charging port on the MS Surface.

Edit: oh, this is worth mentioning. There are a lot of cheap knockoff marine products out there. They claim to be waterproof but they aren't. Instead (Wait for it!!!) the manufacturer offers waterproof warranty and they will replace a unit when (not if) it corrodes.

It's probably cheaper to produce more-or-less-water-resistant devices and deal with replacing some than to ensure that every device off the line is really water resistant. There is a reason that consumer electronics don't often use this as a differentiator: if it was easy and cheap to do reliably, every phone would be waterproof.

Yup. As Drakkenmensch pointed out, this is clearly a case of poor quality control. What an epic waste of good will. Between this and boosting of benchmarks, Samsung needs to focus on actual quality rather than bullet point specs.

The ads for it show it in a fish bowl and a guy standing in a pool with one so I think it would be reasonable to expect you could at least fall into a pool and have your phone still work.

Sounds like another disconnect between Marketing and Engineering: Engineer: "We made the unit less likely to die if you spill coffee on it."Marketer: " 'Explore the ocean depths!' "Engineer: "Well, if you drop it in the toilet and fish it out really fast, it should be OK."Marketer: " 'Take selfies while you cannonball in the deep end!' "Engineer: "You really shouldn't get it wet."Marketer: " 'Spill a latte on your phone? Just toss it in your fish bowl and it'll wash right off!' "

It's probably cheaper to produce more-or-less-water-resistant devices and deal with replacing some than to ensure that every device off the line is really water resistant. There is a reason that consumer electronics don't often use this as a differentiator: if it was easy and cheap to do reliably, every phone would be waterproof.

Sony's been marketing a lot of their new products as waterproof. Hiring models to use them in the shower and such. Have we heard any talk of Sony being full of lies?

Only 1 replacement seems weak. If they're advertising it as waterproof, surely EVERY time it's damaged by water, they should replace it, for it's a failure on the part of the manufacturer?

OK, there's user error, such as not sealing the ports properly or using it at greater depths, but those seem enough like edge cases that Samsung should be willing to eat those costs in order to stand by their product and advertising.

So the link in the story stating "some tests" is actually one 'test' conducted by a tech reporter who didn't know if he went as deep as one meter, and "thought" he had properly sealed the device.

Yep, that's some definitive proof of a defective design right there. Are there other non-anecdotal reports of failure?

If you read all the warnings AT&T has on the device it makes it sound as if you need to take extra precautions before you dunk it in the water. They mention how you should press the AT&T logo on the back of the device to ensure it's properly sealed and have all the ports firmly covered. What the hell good is that? So I'm supposed to ensure my phone is properly sealed before I accidentally drop it into a puddle, into a toilet, get pushed into a pool by over rambunctious friends? That's clearly not how it's being marketed and this technical editor tested it how it's being marketed and I imagine how a lot of people are going to use it.

Being an otterbox defender user, I'm used to pushing the charge and headphone flaps back in place after using the ports on my phone. Every. Single. Time.

The way I figure it, I paid $200 for my $600 phone, and I don't even have applecare. I can be responsible enough to pop in the little flaps to protect my ports. Dust-free ports ftw.

It's almost as hard as feeding my cat.

That said, I understand that accidents do happen, and hardware can be defective, but don't try to pass the responsibility you took on, onto the manufacturer. If you bought this phone, the least you could do is use it right. It has port covers--use them to propperly seal the damn phone before you start using it.

Um truth in advertising? At this point, it should not be advertised as water resistant.

Yet water resistant is the perfect descriptor since the engineers who designed it did so with measures to resist water intrusion. Others have pointed out that the device is able to withstand water intrusion at depths of up to one meter and for as long as 30 minutes. It may not last long at the bottom of your tub when it slips out of your pocket, but it was designed to give you a few extra moments to fish it out.

At least they don't call it water proof, in that case they would have to modify their campaign.

I still think that it's crap that they are only honoring the replacement policy through At&t direct, but your argument is a different flavor of what's represented in the article.

The ads for it show it in a fish bowl and a guy standing in a pool with one so I think it would be reasonable to expect you could at least fall into a pool and have your phone still work.

Sounds like another disconnect between Marketing and Engineering: Engineer: "We made the unit less likely to die if you spill coffee on it."Marketer: " 'Explore the ocean depths!' "Engineer: "Well, if you drop it in the toilet and fish it out really fast, it should be OK."Marketer: " 'Take selfies while you cannonball in the deep end!' "Engineer: "You really shouldn't get it wet."Marketer: " 'Spill a latte on your phone? Just toss it in your fish bowl and it'll wash right off!' "

That's always been my experience as tech support. While you try and get the product to work as intended and hopefully not fall apart if you look at it funny, marketing is busy promising it will allow you to travel through time and leaving the details to the tech guys once the sale has been made and the commissions checks cashed in.

Like most anything else that is X-resistant, there are points of failure that are beyond the scope of whatever resistance is claimed.

Bullet-resistant glass? That does not mean that it will stop every bullet, it depends on the gun, the distance at which the gun was fired, the caliber of the bullet (is that correctly described) and for what the glass is rated.

Water resistant phone? It will only be as good as the operator. Have your charge port uncovered while standing at a sink shaving and the phone falls in? Too bad, so sad, you should have been more diligent in making sure you used the device properly. And maybe not put your frickin phone in a situation where it is unnecessary.

X-resistance does not mean it is idiot proof, erm resistant :-D . The device still has to be handled properly to withstand the limited claims it is making. And water resistant to 1 meter for 30 minutes is actually a pretty decent 'survival' factor to have built in.

I think this is a good policy for Samsung/ATT to have as it allows them to be magnanimous to those users who just buy a neat shiny to show off to their friends and allows ATT to replace the phone due to the customers idiocy. Any phone that claims any water-resistance is a good thing. Can it be done better? Sure, but not for as small or as cheap as consumers want their phones to be and still be useful.

I remember hearing about waterproof coatings that manufacturers can apply to their phones during manufacturing. They are supposed to let the phone work even if it does get wet. I just did a search and found this one:

That said, I understand that accidents do happen, and hardware can be defective, but don't try to pass the responsibility you took on, onto the manufacturer. If you bought this phone, the least you could do is use it right. It has port covers--use them to propperly seal the damn phone before you start using it.

Again, the way Samsung has chosen to market this phone is "buy this phone and you'll never have to worry about sand or dust or flour or water again!" Not, "if you properly seal every port and flap and double checked every seal you'll be able to drop your phone in that muddy puddle for a second and not have to worry about it." It's being marketed to active people and people who are klutzes as their "Problem solved!" phone and it's clearly not. That's not passing the responsibility onto the manufacturer, that's calling them out for all but lying to their consumers.

All this "up to 30 minutes in 1 m of water" is very misleading. This is static pressure (0.1 atmospheres) but even moving the phone in the water or the impact on the water if it falls in will cause a higher pressure peak than that.

I remember hearing about waterproof coatings that manufacturers can apply to their phones during manufacturing. They are supposed to let the phone work even if it does get wet. I just did a search and found this one:

All this "up to 30 minutes in 1 m of water" is very misleading. This is static pressure (0.1 atmospheres) but even moving the phone in the water or the impact on the water if it falls in will cause a higher pressure peak than that.

If I were in charge of testing true water-proofing quality the likes of which was promised by the manufacturer here, my protocol would look like this:

1) Pick 10 random phones from the assembly line.2) Charge and turn them on.3) Toss them in the shallow end of a swimming pool. For added accuracy to the end user experience, say aloud "OOPS DANG MY SLIPPERY FINGERS" for each one.4) Go to the cafeteria for a coffee and a danish.5) Return and fish out the phones, testing each one to see if they can still make phone calls and play Angry Birds.

All this "up to 30 minutes in 1 m of water" is very misleading. This is static pressure (0.1 atmospheres) but even moving the phone in the water or the impact on the water if it falls in will cause a higher pressure peak than that.

If I were in charge of testing true water-proofing quality the likes of which was promised by the manufacturer here, my protocol would look like this:

1) Pick 10 random phones from the assembly line.2) Charge and turn them on.3) Toss them in the shallow end of a swimming pool. For added accuracy to the end user experience, say aloud "OOPS DANG MY SLIPPERY FINGERS" for each one.4) Go to the cafeteria for a coffee and a danish.5) Return and fish out the phones, testing each one to see if they can still make phone calls and play Angry Birds.

6) Go the the doctor about the insomnia, jitters, and extra 40 pounds of weight you have acquired while testing.

For the last two years at CES they have displayed phones and tablets functioning in a fish tank all day long. It is a gas applied in the manufacturing process that bonds at the molecular level, and the device is completely waterproof. You can reach in the water and use the device, no plugs, nothing. Amazing technology that apparently Samsung did not wish to purchase. You can even plug the charger in, as long as it has had the same treatment.

The ads for it show it in a fish bowl and a guy standing in a pool with one so I think it would be reasonable to expect you could at least fall into a pool and have your phone still work.

Sounds like another disconnect between Marketing and Engineering: Engineer: "We made the unit less likely to die if you spill coffee on it."Marketer: " 'Explore the ocean depths!' "Engineer: "Well, if you drop it in the toilet and fish it out really fast, it should be OK."Marketer: " 'Take selfies while you cannonball in the deep end!' "Engineer: "You really shouldn't get it wet."Marketer: " 'Spill a latte on your phone? Just toss it in your fish bowl and it'll wash right off!' "

That's always been my experience as tech support. While you try and get the product to work as intended and hopefully not fall apart if you look at it funny, marketing is busy promising it will allow you to travel through time and leaving the details to the tech guys once the sale has been made and the commissions checks cashed in.

As an amusing aside: apparently, waterproof phones have long been the norm rather than the exception, in Japan. Reports on this have been circulating since 2009, and at this point, it seems that over ninety percent of the phones sold in Japan are waterproof. So call me crazy... but since multiple companies are already doing it, I'd think it can't be that hard to accomplish reliably.

That said, I understand that accidents do happen, and hardware can be defective, but don't try to pass the responsibility you took on, onto the manufacturer. If you bought this phone, the least you could do is use it right. It has port covers--use them to propperly seal the damn phone before you start using it.

Again, the way Samsung has chosen to market this phone is "buy this phone and you'll never have to worry about sand or dust or flour or water again!" Not, "if you properly seal every port and flap and double checked every seal you'll be able to drop your phone in that muddy puddle for a second and not have to worry about it." It's being marketed to active people and people who are klutzes as their "Problem solved!" phone and it's clearly not. That's not passing the responsibility onto the manufacturer, that's calling them out for all but lying to their consumers.

Well, to be fair, you actually won't have to worry about sand, dust, flour, water (to the rated spec), or even semen--so long as you use common sense and seal the ports with the covers (attached to the phone) after using them.

As an amusing aside: apparently, waterproof phones have long been the norm rather than the exception, in Japan. Reports on this have been circulating since 2009, and at this point, it seems that over ninety percent of the phones sold in Japan are waterproof. So call me crazy... but since multiple companies are already doing it, I'd think it can't be that hard to accomplish reliably.

Seems strange to me that everyone is getting so upset because a company is extending their warranty against manufacturer defects to cover a new feature on a new phone.

They will likely sell millions of these phones, it shouldn't surprise anyone that there will be some that end up being defective. I haven't heard any hard fact indicating that there is a high defect rate.

The phone is also only water resistant if properly sealed, and you knew they are going to get people who don't bother to seat the USB plug, drop the thing in a sink or toilet, and then return it when it fails.

Apparently AT&T and Samsung are trying to balance the genuine need to replace defective products with trying to avoid getting ripped off through fraudulent returns, and I suspect there will be at least as fraudulent ones as legitimate ones.

However, it does kind of screw anyone who might get two defective phones. It's unlikely but when we are talking about millions of phones being sold, it is possible. It's kind of crappy to limit the warranty on the phone being waterproof to one return, unless there is a really low defect rate. People who experience genuine problems with defective products shouldn't suffer because a company will likely face a considerable level of fraud.

Well, to be fair, you actually won't have to worry about sand, dust, flour, water (to the rated spec), or even semen--so long as you use common sense and seal the ports with the covers (attached to the phone) after using them.

You blame marketing all you want; I'm going with user error.

Edited for the grammar-nazi within..lol

Show me where in the situations for which this phone is marketed to be durable in Samsung's commercial

they allow for careful sealing of the ports, or even mention it in tiny text on the screen.

Sorry, maybe the Ars audience understands how these things really work and would understand which precautions are needed and when it's unrealistic to expect the phone to survive, but Samsung is fully to blame for these failures if they are selling this to the public at large. You are the error here.

Sony's Xperia Z was displayed beside a little dunk tank at the local T-Mobile store. Until last week.

Shoppers had been putting the phones into the tank without seating the plug that would keep water out of the USB port. So the phone were croaking. So the water tank was removed.

A grain of sand, or some lint, could have compromised the seal of that plug. So the phones might be theoretically water resistant, but in a way that is so unreliable for consumers that manufacturers really shouldn't claim this feature.

they allow for careful sealing of the ports, or even mention it in tiny text on the screen.

Sorry, maybe the Ars audience understands how these things really work and would understand which precautions are needed and when it's unrealistic to expect the phone to survive, but Samsung is fully to blame for these failures if they are selling this to the public at large. You are the error here.

It's thinking like this why commercials have to put disclaimers like "Warning: Cars cannot rail slide" on the screen.

In the case of this phone, it has a usb port. That's a giant fucking hole into the device, and there's a plug right there. When you're done charging, why *wouldn't* you plug it up, JUST IN CASE?

As for the back seal cover, if you have to repeatedly throughout the day (presuming only normal use and not dropping/slamming the phone around) press on it firmly to seal, I'd agree that's a poor design and the phone's water resistant nature shouldn't be so loudly publicized.

My biggest gripe with this article is that based on the anecdotal account of one person, the entire design is condemned. Personally I'd like to see more evidence of widespread failure before drawing a conclusion that the device is a fraud.

And no, the policy to offer replacement is *not* an endorsement of the "flawed design" idea. It's more likely to account for user error.